Posted by
on May 19th, 2012 and filed under
Alex talks with Mike Adams, the Health Ranger. Mike is a natural health researcher and author with a mission to teach personal and planetary health to the public. He is a prolific writer and has published thousands of articles, interviews, reports and consumer guides. Mike is a key writer for the NaturalNews Network. www.naturalnews.com www.healthranger.org
A question earlier asked for information on the ‘cons’ of neutering his male dog. Several of the answers stated that there were absolutely none. It amazes me that people still insist that are are no negative risks of neutering – the evidence simply does NOT support this one sided view
This is from a study done into over 50 peer reviewed articles on the ‘Long-Term Health Risks and Benefits Associated with Spay / Neuter in Dogs”
“”An objective reading of the veterinary medical literature reveals a complex situation with respect to the longterm health risks and benefits associated with spay/neuter in dogs. The evidence shows that spay/neuter correlates with both positive AND adverse health effects in dogs. It also suggests how much we really do not yet understand about this subject.”
The study goes on to list both positive and negative effects of neutering.
On the positive side, neutering male dogs
• eliminates the small risk (probably <1%) of dying from testicular cancer
• reduces the risk of non-cancerous prostate disorders
• reduces the risk of perianal fistulas
• may possibly reduce the risk of diabetes (data inconclusive)
On the negative side, neutering male dogs
• if done before 1 year of age, significantly increases the risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer); this is a common cancer in medium/large and larger breeds with a poor prognosis.
• increases the risk of cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 1.6
• triples the risk of hypothyroidism
• increases the risk of progressive geriatric cognitive impairment
• triples the risk of obesity, a common health problem in dogs with many associated health problems
• quadruples the small risk (<0.6%) of prostate cancer
• doubles the small risk (<1%) of urinary tract cancers
• increases the risk of orthopedic disorders
• increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermH…
For the people that continue to state that there is absolutely no risk in neutering and that all dogs should be neutered before puberty – where did you get this information and do you have anything to back this up??
*** I’m not advocating that every animal should remain sexually entire but that people acknowledge that there are some long term effects of this surgery. I understand that overpopulation is a major issue but the majority of dog owners ARE responsible enough to prevent an unplanned pregnancy.
I’ve asked this question because, to be honest, I’m sick of getting thumbs down for trying to present both sides of the discussion.
I’m not just talking about the risks of surgery but the long term health effects.
let me expand on this to clear up the misunderstanding – I understand that overpopulation is a major issue but the majority of dog owners ARE responsible enough to prevent an unplanned pregnancy at least until the animal reaches twelve months of age.
More Pages:
- Health: Actual Studies Into Neutering That Lists NO Cons? (4/6/2011)
- Health: Does Abortion Lead To Psychological Trauma? (2/12/2012)
- Health: Should I Let My Husband Get A Dog? (11/4/2011)
- Health: Moving To Ireland From Australia For 2-5 Yrs? (12/11/2011)
- Is Bush administration censorship of information from scientists a cause of “skepticism”?
I agree with you on the parts about the health risks in neutering dogs, neutering early and what not. There are lots of risks, and I don’t get why people don’t see or don’t want to see the cons.
What I don’t agree with you on, comes in you’re last paragraph. The majority of people are NOT responsible to keep an intact dog from unplanned pregnancy. This IS proved by the hundreds upon thousands of “Is my dog pregnant”, “my dog is pregnant, what do I do”, etc. etc. q’s that flood this board every week. Those are the people who should have had their dog altered at the appropriate age.
The responsible people on here are the ones that try their best to get through the thick skulls of these people, often falling short. Majority of these people are the ones I have to say are responsible enough to have an intact dog. But this is only a small percentage of the population.
I would have to guestimate that 95-98% of the population should not own an intact dog because they are irresponsible
Wow, I have never heard of any negative side affects. Of course other than weight gain. Does the same go for cats? I have a indoor male cat, i never had intentions for neutering him. Because I am scared for him to become lazy and fat just like my previous cats. Thanks for the information =]
a lot don’t read and care about the health risk so they won’t tell people…they just want people to hurry up and neuter their dogs…
Your last paragraph absolutely floors me! How can you say that given the fact that hundreds of thousands of dogs are put to death in this country alone every year! Where is your “majority of responsible owners then?!”
The problem is that most people are NOT responsible owners – that is why the pet over population tragedy is what it is today! ‘
And, yes, there may be some side effects to neutering, but the longest lasting side effect of not neutering your dog is more dogs being put to death year after year.
Yes, there are health risks with neutering. There is with every surgery. However, I have to disagree with you, I think that the majority of dog owners are not responsible enough to handle an intact dog. All of the “my dog is pregnant” questions that are asked happen because someone did not properly control their intact dog. Perhaps the majority of dog section regulars would be responsible-but the dog owning public-not yet.